Dictators and Their Subjects: Authoritarian Attitudinal Effects and Legacies* Anja Neundorf (University of Glasgow) Grigore Pop-Eleches (Princeton University) [Accepted for publication in Comparative Political Studies, March 30, 2020] Abstract This introductory essay outlines the key themes of the special issue on the long-term impact of autocracies on the political attitudes and behavior of their subjects. Here we highlight several important areas of theoretical and empirical refinements, which can provide a more nuanced picture of the process through which authoritarian attitudinal legacies emerge and persist. First, we define the nature of attitudinal legacies and their driving mechanisms, developing a framework of competing socialization. Second, we use the competing socialization framework to explain two potential sources of heterogeneity in attitudinal and behavioral legacies: varieties of institutional features of authoritarian regimes, which affect the nature of regime socialization efforts; and variations across different subgroups of (post-)authoritarian citizens, which reflect the nature and strength of alternative socialization efforts. This new framework can help us to better understand contradictory findings in this emerging literature as well as set a new agenda for future research. Keywords: Authoritarian regimes; political behavior; indoctrination; authoritarian legacies. * Introductory essay for the special issue of the same title. 1 1. Introduction Today about half of the world’s population lives in either closed or electoral authoritarian regimes.1 Another 40 percent live in countries, which experienced autocratic periods in the last 80 years. Taken together, nine out of ten people in the world today had direct or indirect exposure to authoritarian regimes.2 Crucially, there is widespread agreement and much anecdotal evidence that this experience has shaped – often in dramatic and lasting ways – the attitudes and behavior of individuals living under such regimes, often for long after the regime has been overthrown. Yet, we have surprisingly limited knowledge of the mechanisms through which authoritarian attitudinal and behavioral legacies emerge and persist. This special issue proposes a new framework and research agenda for a more systematic study of authoritarian attitudinal legacies and brings together four papers that contribute to several key dimensions of this emerging research agenda. While in the last two decades there has been a significant revival in the study of authoritarian legacies, the bulk of this literature has focused on aggregate outcomes, such as institutions and elite actors, especially political parties.3 These issues are undoubtedly very important for understanding post-authoritarian politics, including the prospects for successful democratization and democratic survival, as well as many other aspects of policy making in former authoritarian countries. However, we know from the democratization literature that public support, a democratic political culture, and an active citizenry are also fundamental for the survival of democracy (e.g., Booth and Seligson 2009; Diamond 1999; Norris 2011; Claassen 2020). Similarly, the political attitudes of citizens matter greatly for the types of economic and social policies that we can expect to emerge from the democratic process. 2 If citizens’ political preferences and behavior are crucial for understanding the resilience and functioning of democracy, it is important to investigate how these are formed. While this question has received considerable attention in established democracies (e.g. Jennings and Markus 1985; Jennings 1989; Zaller 1992; Alvarez and Brehm 2002), in a post-authoritarian context an important part of the answer hinges on understanding how political attitudes and behavior are shaped by the authoritarian past. The articles in this special issue contribute to a small (but growing) set of studies focused more squarely on the impact of authoritarian regimes on individual political attitudes and behavior. At the most basic level, we can think of authoritarian attitudinal legacies as consisting of two necessary steps. The first step is for authoritarian regimes to shape the attitudes and behavior of their citizens. The second step is for these effects to persist across a regime divide, i.e. after the end of the regime that inculcated those initial effects (Beissinger and Kotkin 2014). The first step can be studied directly by focusing on public opinion in contemporary authoritarian regimes. Such an approach, which is exemplified by one of the contributions to this special issue (Tertytchnaya 2019) and by a growing literature on the contemporaneous attitudinal effects of authoritarian regimes,4 has the obvious advantage of allowing for a direct test of authoritarian attitudinal effects. However, in addition to their analytical challenges,5 such studies are limited in the extent to which they can address the durability of these effects, and – by definition – they cannot establish the nature of post-authoritarian attitudinal legacies. The second approach is to analyze the effects of these regimes on their citizens’ political attitudes and behavior after the regime breaks down. This approach, which is the primary focus of three of the four articles in this special issue, as well as of a small but rapidly growing literature on authoritarian attitudinal legacies, has the advantage of being able to address the 3 crucial question of legacy durability. Several existing studies have established the existence and the durable impact of authoritarian regimes on a variety of attitudes including lower support for and satisfaction with democracy (Neundorf 2010; Pop-Eleches and Tucker 2014, 2017), demand for democracy (Mattes and Bratton 2007), support for the previous regime (Mishler and Rose 2007), the emergence of political trust (Mishler and Rose 2001), attitudes towards markets and welfare states (Alesina and Fuchs-Schundeln 2007; Pop-Eleches and Tucker 2014, 2017), as well as behavior, including lower civic and political participation (Bernhard and Karakoc 2007; Pop- Eleches and Tucker 2013; Ekiert and Kubik 2014; Northmore-Ball 2014). Despite producing some promising and valuable insights, the existing research has produced contradictory results,6 is still limited in its scope, and faces a number of important theoretical and analytical challenges. This introductory essay draws on the contributions to this special issue to lay out a new framework and research agenda that can help us overcome at least some of these limitations of previous studies. First, existing research in this area lacks a unified theoretical framework, which conceptualizes key concepts related to attitudinal legacies. Further, while several of these studies have started to investigate the mechanisms underlying the production and reproduction of these legacies (Darden and Grzymala-Busse 2006; Wittenberg 2006; Neundorf 2010; Pop-Eleches and Tucker 2017; Lupu and Peisakhin 2017), a lot more work remains to be done to theorize and test these mechanisms. This introductory essay tries to fill this gap. Second, since much of this work has focused on the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the existing studies have largely failed to take advantage of the analytical advances in the literature on varieties of authoritarianism. Third, with a few exceptions, existing studies have not sufficiently addressed the important individual heterogeneities in authoritarian attitudinal legacies. This applies both with respect to differential 4 effects on different subgroups of authoritarian subjects and with respect to different types of attitudes and behavior. We discuss each of these issues in greater detail in the next sections and then touch upon a few additional analytical challenges in our discussion of future research directions in the conclusion. 2. Authoritarian Attitudinal Legacies – A New Theoretical Framework To understand how authoritarian regimes shape political attitudes, and how these short-term effects eventually translate into attitudinal legacies, we need to understand the mechanisms through which attitudes are formed and reproduced. In this section we discuss a new theoretical framework of authoritarian attitudinal legacies, focusing on three key questions: First, how do autocracies affect their citizens? Second, what is the mechanism underlying this authoritarian influence? Finally, what affects the longevity of this effect? 2.1 Direction: How do autocracies affect their citizens? To understand the initial attitudinal impact that autocracies have on their citizens, it is important to distinguish between different possible individual reactions to regime efforts, mainly transmitted through indoctrination. Perhaps the most straightforward scenario, which we will call internalization, is that individuals will adopt political attitudes and behaviors in line with the “official line” of the regime. Several of the findings in this special issue – such as the greater prevalence of left-authoritarians among respondents with greater personal communist exposure (Pop-Eleches and Tucker 2019) as well as higher nostalgia and weaker democratic support and 5 satisfaction among individuals who spend their formative years under authoritarianism (Neundorf et al 2019) – suggest that authoritarian indoctrination can indeed produce significant and lasting attitudinal effects, which are in line with the goals of the authoritarian regime. However, given the